Derivations - What's Acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BOAS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivations
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, the author seeks guidance on whether to include derivations of equations that are not directly used in their paper on the lens makers formula. They express a desire to demonstrate their understanding by deriving these equations from first principles, starting with Snell's law. However, they are concerned that including these derivations may be seen as unnecessary or merely an attempt to increase word count. The author is looking for clarity on the expectations for comprehensive theory discussions in academic papers. Ultimately, the focus is on balancing thoroughness with relevance in presenting theoretical derivations.
BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



Hello,

this isn't really a h/w problem that fits the template, but here seems the most sensible place to post.

I am writing a paper (not original research) and part of the requirements is that I include a "comprehensive discussion of the relevant theory (including derivations of equations)". The experiment I will be writing about makes use of the lens makers formula. I know how to derive this but the derivation makes use of the equation \frac{n_{1}}{p} + \frac{n_{2}}{q} = \frac{n_{2} - n_{1}}{R}.

This equation in turn relies upon snell's law, which I can derive from fermat's principle.

My question is this;

If the experiment doesn't make use of the other equations, is it necessary to show their derivations, or is it acceptable to merely reference them?

I don't want to make it sound like I'm hoping you'll say 'just reference them' - I would actually like to show my lab instructor that I can derive it from first principles but I am worried that it might be viewed as unnecessary/an attempt to boost the word count etc.

What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would start from Snell's law and use it to show all other relevant equations.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top